From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: executable-find in files.el Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:08:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01c55657$Blat.v2.4$7979dc20@zahav.net.il> <87fywt6128.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87ekc9lurh.fsf@gmx.de> <87k6lzots5.fsf@gmx.de> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116436150 6580 80.91.229.2 (18 May 2005 17:09:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 18 19:09:08 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DYRze-0004n7-Vd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:06:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DYS28-0001yg-4r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:08:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DYOJb-0006rM-GW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:10:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DYOJZ-0006o8-1z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DYOJY-0006dP-Fo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:10:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DYOPo-0001Hu-1S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:16:48 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DYOHI-0002Lp-OQ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:08:00 -0400 Original-To: Michael Albinus In-reply-to: <87k6lzots5.fsf@gmx.de> (message from Michael Albinus on Mon, 16 May 2005 21:27:54 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:37270 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37270 But during migrating existing packages, the drawback has been obvious: Everywhere there is the need of checking a command for being remote or not, and then to call `process-file' or `call-process'. I can't see why you did that. If in a certain call you want the file name handler to be used, you can unconditionally call process-file. Why didn't you do that? If `call-process' would be able to handle remote commands, most of the cases nothing would be needed to be changed - the existing code would simply work. And the same for `start-process'. This would be an incompatible change, and I am not convinced it is correct or meaningful. The definition of call-process is that it runs the command you specified. I does not seem right for the mere choice of default-directory should have such a major effect on call-process. Conceptually, process-file is different. And the same for `start-process'. Likewise the mere default-directory should not have such a drastic effect on start-process. If we have a facility to start a process on a possibly-remote machine, we should specify it differently. Perhaps with a new function start-remote-process that has a new arg that says which machine. When that arg is nil, it would be equivalent to start-process.